Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2141

control, N = 1061

treatment, N = 1081

p-value2

age

212

51.21 ± 12.94 (23 - 75)

50.47 ± 13.22 (23 - 75)

51.93 ± 12.68 (28 - 73)

0.413

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

214

0.557

f

173 (81%)

84 (79%)

89 (82%)

m

41 (19%)

22 (21%)

19 (18%)

occupation

214

0.847

day_training

5 (2.3%)

2 (1.9%)

3 (2.8%)

full_time

24 (11%)

12 (11%)

12 (11%)

homemaker

30 (14%)

14 (13%)

16 (15%)

other

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.9%)

part_time

40 (19%)

22 (21%)

18 (17%)

retired

51 (24%)

23 (22%)

28 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.7%)

4 (3.8%)

4 (3.7%)

shelter

1 (0.5%)

1 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

student

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.9%)

t_and_e

3 (1.4%)

2 (1.9%)

1 (0.9%)

unemploy

48 (22%)

26 (25%)

22 (20%)

marital

214

0.981

cohabitation

1 (0.5%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.9%)

divore

24 (11%)

13 (12%)

11 (10%)

in_relationship

4 (1.9%)

2 (1.9%)

2 (1.9%)

married

68 (32%)

32 (30%)

36 (33%)

none

99 (46%)

50 (47%)

49 (45%)

seperation

3 (1.4%)

2 (1.9%)

1 (0.9%)

widow

15 (7.0%)

7 (6.6%)

8 (7.4%)

edu

214

0.538

bachelor

47 (22%)

20 (19%)

27 (25%)

diploma

37 (17%)

23 (22%)

14 (13%)

hd_ad

5 (2.3%)

4 (3.8%)

1 (0.9%)

postgraduate

15 (7.0%)

8 (7.5%)

7 (6.5%)

primary

18 (8.4%)

8 (7.5%)

10 (9.3%)

secondary_1_3

25 (12%)

13 (12%)

12 (11%)

secondary_4_5

57 (27%)

26 (25%)

31 (29%)

secondary_6_7

10 (4.7%)

4 (3.8%)

6 (5.6%)

fam_income

214

0.851

10001_12000

7 (3.3%)

2 (1.9%)

5 (4.6%)

12001_14000

11 (5.1%)

4 (3.8%)

7 (6.5%)

14001_16000

10 (4.7%)

4 (3.8%)

6 (5.6%)

16001_18000

5 (2.3%)

3 (2.8%)

2 (1.9%)

18001_20000

10 (4.7%)

7 (6.6%)

3 (2.8%)

20001_above

37 (17%)

21 (20%)

16 (15%)

2001_4000

32 (15%)

15 (14%)

17 (16%)

4001_6000

27 (13%)

12 (11%)

15 (14%)

6001_8000

20 (9.3%)

11 (10%)

9 (8.3%)

8001_10000

17 (7.9%)

9 (8.5%)

8 (7.4%)

below_2000

38 (18%)

18 (17%)

20 (19%)

medication

214

191 (89%)

94 (89%)

97 (90%)

0.789

onset_duration

212

15.40 ± 10.90 (0 - 63)

15.12 ± 10.99 (0 - 56)

15.68 ± 10.86 (0 - 63)

0.709

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

210

35.91 ± 14.59 (-18 - 72)

35.25 ± 12.96 (10 - 67)

36.56 ± 16.06 (-18 - 72)

0.517

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2141

control, N = 1061

treatment, N = 1081

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

214

3.14 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.13 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

0.968

recovery_stage_b

214

17.91 ± 2.82 (8 - 24)

18.05 ± 2.88 (8 - 24)

17.78 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)

0.486

ras_confidence

214

29.77 ± 5.41 (9 - 45)

29.57 ± 5.31 (14 - 42)

29.96 ± 5.52 (9 - 45)

0.593

ras_willingness

214

11.64 ± 2.10 (3 - 15)

11.67 ± 2.00 (5 - 15)

11.61 ± 2.21 (3 - 15)

0.839

ras_goal

214

17.35 ± 3.25 (5 - 25)

17.19 ± 3.17 (7 - 25)

17.51 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.472

ras_reliance

214

13.18 ± 2.87 (4 - 20)

13.03 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.94 (4 - 20)

0.438

ras_domination

214

9.80 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)

10.01 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)

9.59 ± 2.39 (3 - 15)

0.204

symptom

214

30.28 ± 9.28 (14 - 56)

30.28 ± 9.44 (14 - 55)

30.28 ± 9.16 (14 - 56)

0.997

slof_work

214

22.17 ± 4.75 (10 - 30)

22.30 ± 4.42 (12 - 30)

22.05 ± 5.07 (10 - 30)

0.695

slof_relationship

214

25.14 ± 5.75 (9 - 35)

24.64 ± 5.85 (9 - 35)

25.64 ± 5.64 (11 - 35)

0.206

satisfaction

214

20.21 ± 7.02 (5 - 35)

19.54 ± 6.87 (5 - 34)

20.88 ± 7.14 (5 - 35)

0.163

mhc_emotional

214

10.71 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

10.61 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

10.81 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

0.694

mhc_social

214

15.20 ± 5.78 (5 - 30)

14.97 ± 5.84 (5 - 30)

15.43 ± 5.75 (5 - 30)

0.567

mhc_psychological

214

21.77 ± 6.67 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.56 (7 - 36)

21.99 ± 6.81 (6 - 36)

0.628

resilisnce

214

16.56 ± 4.59 (6 - 30)

16.01 ± 4.28 (6 - 30)

17.09 ± 4.83 (6 - 30)

0.084

social_provision

214

13.57 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

13.20 ± 2.69 (5 - 20)

13.94 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)

0.051

els_value_living

214

16.96 ± 3.08 (5 - 25)

16.80 ± 3.02 (6 - 24)

17.12 ± 3.15 (5 - 25)

0.451

els_life_fulfill

214

12.70 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)

12.37 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)

13.03 ± 3.26 (4 - 20)

0.140

els

214

29.66 ± 5.81 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 5.71 (11 - 44)

30.15 ± 5.89 (9 - 45)

0.219

social_connect

214

26.59 ± 9.07 (8 - 48)

26.92 ± 8.89 (8 - 48)

26.28 ± 9.28 (8 - 48)

0.608

shs_agency

214

14.31 ± 4.96 (3 - 24)

13.74 ± 4.79 (3 - 23)

14.88 ± 5.09 (3 - 24)

0.092

shs_pathway

214

15.88 ± 4.13 (3 - 24)

15.42 ± 4.24 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.101

shs

214

30.20 ± 8.71 (6 - 48)

29.15 ± 8.68 (6 - 46)

31.22 ± 8.66 (7 - 48)

0.082

esteem

214

12.69 ± 1.59 (9 - 20)

12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.73 ± 1.56 (10 - 20)

0.712

mlq_search

214

14.76 ± 3.48 (3 - 21)

14.42 ± 3.42 (4 - 21)

15.09 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)

0.161

mlq_presence

214

13.38 ± 4.29 (3 - 21)

13.25 ± 4.09 (3 - 21)

13.52 ± 4.50 (3 - 21)

0.643

mlq

214

28.14 ± 6.93 (6 - 42)

27.67 ± 6.65 (7 - 40)

28.61 ± 7.19 (6 - 42)

0.322

empower

214

19.22 ± 4.38 (6 - 30)

18.89 ± 4.24 (9 - 30)

19.55 ± 4.51 (6 - 30)

0.272

ismi_resistance

214

14.34 ± 2.62 (5 - 20)

14.34 ± 2.36 (6 - 20)

14.33 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)

0.986

ismi_discrimation

214

11.71 ± 3.04 (5 - 20)

11.84 ± 2.92 (5 - 20)

11.57 ± 3.16 (5 - 20)

0.524

sss_affective

214

10.30 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.21 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

10.39 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.715

sss_behavior

214

9.94 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

10.06 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

9.82 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.648

sss_cognitive

214

8.63 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

8.49 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

8.77 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

0.587

sss

214

28.87 ± 10.35 (9 - 54)

28.75 ± 10.19 (9 - 54)

28.98 ± 10.56 (9 - 54)

0.873

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.13

0.119

2.90, 3.36

group

control

treatment

-0.001

0.167

-0.328, 0.327

0.997

time_point

1st

2nd

0.078

0.159

-0.234, 0.389

0.626

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.229

0.233

-0.228, 0.686

0.328

Pseudo R square

0.008

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.283

17.5, 18.6

group

control

treatment

-0.257

0.400

-1.04, 0.526

0.521

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.274

0.314

-0.889, 0.341

0.384

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.898

0.462

-0.009, 1.80

0.054

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.533

28.5, 30.6

group

control

treatment

0.389

0.752

-1.09, 1.86

0.606

time_point

1st

2nd

0.565

0.506

-0.426, 1.56

0.266

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.68

0.746

0.214, 3.14

0.026

Pseudo R square

0.025

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.202

11.3, 12.1

group

control

treatment

-0.043

0.285

-0.601, 0.515

0.879

time_point

1st

2nd

0.018

0.215

-0.403, 0.439

0.933

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.533

0.317

-0.087, 1.15

0.095

Pseudo R square

0.008

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.319

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.332

0.450

-0.551, 1.21

0.462

time_point

1st

2nd

0.169

0.322

-0.461, 0.800

0.599

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.890

0.475

-0.041, 1.82

0.063

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.284

12.5, 13.6

group

control

treatment

0.315

0.400

-0.469, 1.10

0.431

time_point

1st

2nd

0.366

0.278

-0.180, 0.911

0.191

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.545

0.411

-0.260, 1.35

0.187

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.0

0.234

9.55, 10.5

group

control

treatment

-0.413

0.329

-1.06, 0.233

0.211

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.084

0.270

-0.612, 0.444

0.755

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.16

0.397

0.378, 1.93

0.004

Pseudo R square

0.021

symptom

(Intercept)

30.3

0.898

28.5, 32.0

group

control

treatment

-0.102

1.266

-2.58, 2.38

0.936

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.21

0.733

-2.65, 0.224

0.100

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.52

1.084

-3.64, 0.608

0.164

Pseudo R square

0.012

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.3

0.459

21.4, 23.2

group

control

treatment

-0.216

0.647

-1.48, 1.05

0.739

time_point

1st

2nd

0.077

0.436

-0.778, 0.931

0.861

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.493

0.644

-0.769, 1.75

0.445

Pseudo R square

0.002

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.6

0.559

23.5, 25.7

group

control

treatment

1.04

0.789

-0.509, 2.58

0.190

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.069

0.542

-1.13, 0.994

0.899

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.661

0.800

-0.907, 2.23

0.410

Pseudo R square

0.013

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.5

0.685

18.2, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.35

0.966

-0.544, 3.24

0.164

time_point

1st

2nd

0.841

0.636

-0.406, 2.09

0.188

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.999

0.939

-0.842, 2.84

0.290

Pseudo R square

0.022

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.365

9.90, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.216

0.515

-0.793, 1.23

0.675

time_point

1st

2nd

0.351

0.312

-0.260, 0.961

0.262

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.205

0.460

-0.698, 1.11

0.658

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.0

0.579

13.8, 16.1

group

control

treatment

0.473

0.816

-1.13, 2.07

0.563

time_point

1st

2nd

0.782

0.551

-0.298, 1.86

0.158

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.266

0.813

-1.33, 1.86

0.744

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.5

0.670

20.2, 22.9

group

control

treatment

0.492

0.944

-1.36, 2.34

0.603

time_point

1st

2nd

0.960

0.602

-0.220, 2.14

0.113

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.113

0.889

-1.63, 1.86

0.899

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.0

0.436

15.2, 16.9

group

control

treatment

1.05

0.615

-0.151, 2.26

0.088

time_point

1st

2nd

0.653

0.454

-0.237, 1.54

0.153

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.05

0.670

-0.261, 2.36

0.119

Pseudo R square

0.039

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.277

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.738

0.391

-0.028, 1.51

0.060

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.192

0.279

-0.740, 0.356

0.493

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.545

0.412

-0.263, 1.35

0.188

Pseudo R square

0.028

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.306

16.2, 17.4

group

control

treatment

0.334

0.432

-0.511, 1.18

0.439

time_point

1st

2nd

0.207

0.313

-0.406, 0.820

0.510

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.606

0.461

-0.298, 1.51

0.191

Pseudo R square

0.014

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.316

11.7, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.668

0.445

-0.205, 1.54

0.135

time_point

1st

2nd

0.226

0.298

-0.357, 0.810

0.449

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.511

0.440

-0.351, 1.37

0.248

Pseudo R square

0.022

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.573

28.0, 30.3

group

control

treatment

1.00

0.808

-0.580, 2.59

0.215

time_point

1st

2nd

0.461

0.527

-0.573, 1.49

0.384

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.06

0.779

-0.470, 2.58

0.178

Pseudo R square

0.020

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

0.893

25.2, 28.7

group

control

treatment

-0.683

1.259

-3.15, 1.78

0.588

time_point

1st

2nd

0.334

0.793

-1.22, 1.89

0.674

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.76

1.172

-6.06, -1.47

0.002

Pseudo R square

0.025

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.483

12.8, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.14

0.682

-0.194, 2.48

0.095

time_point

1st

2nd

0.540

0.420

-0.284, 1.36

0.202

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.524

0.621

-0.693, 1.74

0.400

Pseudo R square

0.023

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.395

14.6, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.938

0.557

-0.154, 2.03

0.094

time_point

1st

2nd

0.586

0.376

-0.151, 1.32

0.122

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.317

0.555

-0.771, 1.41

0.569

Pseudo R square

0.023

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.839

27.5, 30.8

group

control

treatment

2.08

1.184

-0.239, 4.40

0.080

time_point

1st

2nd

1.12

0.740

-0.329, 2.57

0.132

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.833

1.093

-1.31, 2.98

0.447

Pseudo R square

0.025

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.149

12.4, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.068

0.211

-0.344, 0.481

0.746

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.017

0.200

-0.409, 0.376

0.934

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.033

0.294

-0.544, 0.609

0.912

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.337

13.8, 15.1

group

control

treatment

0.709

0.475

-0.222, 1.64

0.137

time_point

1st

2nd

0.692

0.392

-0.077, 1.46

0.080

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.676

0.577

-1.81, 0.456

0.244

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.412

12.4, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.306

0.581

-0.832, 1.44

0.599

time_point

1st

2nd

0.778

0.444

-0.091, 1.65

0.082

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.052

0.654

-1.23, 1.33

0.937

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq

(Intercept)

27.7

0.675

26.3, 29.0

group

control

treatment

1.02

0.952

-0.849, 2.88

0.287

time_point

1st

2nd

1.47

0.756

-0.013, 2.95

0.054

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.609

1.114

-2.79, 1.57

0.585

Pseudo R square

0.010

empower

(Intercept)

18.9

0.432

18.0, 19.7

group

control

treatment

0.671

0.610

-0.524, 1.87

0.272

time_point

1st

2nd

0.990

0.423

0.162, 1.82

0.021

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.311

0.623

-1.53, 0.911

0.618

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.247

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

0.023

0.349

-0.661, 0.706

0.948

time_point

1st

2nd

0.335

0.291

-0.235, 0.905

0.251

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.577

0.428

-0.263, 1.42

0.180

Pseudo R square

0.017

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.299

11.3, 12.4

group

control

treatment

-0.255

0.421

-1.08, 0.570

0.545

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.464

0.355

-1.16, 0.232

0.194

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.407

0.523

-1.43, 0.618

0.438

Pseudo R square

0.015

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.2

0.354

9.51, 10.9

group

control

treatment

0.168

0.499

-0.810, 1.15

0.736

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.319

0.311

-0.928, 0.290

0.307

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.902

0.459

-1.80, -0.003

0.052

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.1

0.356

9.36, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.250

0.502

-1.23, 0.734

0.619

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.429

0.328

-1.07, 0.215

0.194

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.400

0.485

-1.35, 0.551

0.411

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.49

0.355

7.80, 9.19

group

control

treatment

0.253

0.500

-0.728, 1.23

0.614

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.318

0.341

-0.986, 0.350

0.353

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.702

0.503

-1.69, 0.283

0.165

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss

(Intercept)

28.8

0.999

26.8, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.169

1.410

-2.59, 2.93

0.905

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.06

0.827

-2.68, 0.564

0.204

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.92

1.221

-4.32, 0.471

0.118

Pseudo R square

0.010

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.95e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.13 (95% CI [2.90, 3.36], t(320) = 26.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.45e-04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33], t(320) = -3.26e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = -4.49e-04, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.39], t(320) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.69], t(320) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.05 (95% CI [17.49, 18.60], t(320) = 63.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.53], t(320) = -0.64, p = 0.520; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.34], t(320) = -0.87, p = 0.382; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-8.54e-03, 1.80], t(320) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.91e-03, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.57 (95% CI [28.52, 30.61], t(320) = 55.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.86], t(320) = 0.52, p = 0.605; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.56], t(320) = 1.12, p = 0.263; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [0.21, 3.14], t(320) = 2.25, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.04, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.67 (95% CI [11.27, 12.07], t(320) = 57.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.51], t(320) = -0.15, p = 0.879; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.44], t(320) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 8.67e-03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.15], t(320) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.19 (95% CI [16.56, 17.81], t(320) = 53.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.21], t(320) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.80], t(320) = 0.53, p = 0.598; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.82], t(320) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.47, 13.58], t(320) = 45.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.10], t(320) = 0.79, p = 0.431; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.91], t(320) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.35], t(320) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.55, 10.47], t(320) = 42.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.23], t(320) = -1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.44], t(320) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [0.38, 1.93], t(320) = 2.91, p = 0.004; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.16, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.28 (95% CI [28.52, 32.04], t(320) = 33.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.58, 2.38], t(320) = -0.08, p = 0.935; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-2.65, 0.22], t(320) = -1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-3.64, 0.61], t(320) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.30 (95% CI [21.40, 23.20], t(320) = 48.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.05], t(320) = -0.33, p = 0.738; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.93], t(320) = 0.18, p = 0.861; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.75], t(320) = 0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.64 (95% CI [23.55, 25.74], t(320) = 44.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.58], t(320) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.99], t(320) = -0.13, p = 0.899; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.23], t(320) = 0.83, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.54 (95% CI [18.20, 20.88], t(320) = 28.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.54, 3.24], t(320) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.09], t(320) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.84], t(320) = 1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.90, 11.33], t(320) = 29.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.23], t(320) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.96], t(320) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.11], t(320) = 0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.97 (95% CI [13.84, 16.11], t(320) = 25.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.07], t(320) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.86], t(320) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.86], t(320) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.23, 22.86], t(320) = 32.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.34], t(320) = 0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.14], t(320) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.86], t(320) = 0.13, p = 0.899; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.01 (95% CI [15.16, 16.86], t(320) = 36.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.26], t(320) = 1.71, p = 0.086; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.54], t(320) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 2.36], t(320) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.65, 13.74], t(320) = 47.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.51], t(320) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-9.67e-03, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.36], t(320) = -0.69, p = 0.492; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.35], t(320) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.80 (95% CI [16.20, 17.40], t(320) = 54.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(320) = 0.77, p = 0.438; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.82], t(320) = 0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.51], t(320) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.75, 12.99], t(320) = 39.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.54], t(320) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.81], t(320) = 0.76, p = 0.447; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.37], t(320) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.05, 30.29], t(320) = 50.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.59], t(320) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.49], t(320) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.58], t(320) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.92 (95% CI [25.17, 28.66], t(320) = 30.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-3.15, 1.78], t(320) = -0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.89], t(320) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.76, 95% CI [-6.06, -1.47], t(320) = -3.21, p = 0.001; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.79, 14.68], t(320) = 28.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 2.48], t(320) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.36], t(320) = 1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.74], t(320) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.42 (95% CI [14.64, 16.19], t(320) = 39.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.03], t(320) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.32], t(320) = 1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.41], t(320) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.15 (95% CI [27.51, 30.80], t(320) = 34.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 4.40], t(320) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.57], t(320) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.98], t(320) = 0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.95e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.36, 12.94], t(320) = 84.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.48], t(320) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.38], t(320) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.61], t(320) = 0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.76, 15.09], t(320) = 42.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.64], t(320) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.46], t(320) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.81, 0.46], t(320) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.25 (95% CI [12.44, 14.05], t(320) = 32.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.44], t(320) = 0.53, p = 0.598; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.65], t(320) = 1.75, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.33], t(320) = 0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.67 (95% CI [26.35, 28.99], t(320) = 41.00, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.85, 2.88], t(320) = 1.07, p = 0.286; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.01, 2.95], t(320) = 1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.82e-03, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-2.79, 1.57], t(320) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.89 (95% CI [18.04, 19.73], t(320) = 43.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.87], t(320) = 1.10, p = 0.271; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [0.16, 1.82], t(320) = 2.34, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [0.04, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.91], t(320) = -0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.34 (95% CI [13.85, 14.82], t(320) = 57.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.71], t(320) = 0.07, p = 0.948; Std. beta = 8.86e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.91], t(320) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.42], t(320) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.84 (95% CI [11.25, 12.43], t(320) = 39.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.57], t(320) = -0.61, p = 0.545; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.23], t(320) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.62], t(320) = -0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.21 (95% CI [9.51, 10.90], t(320) = 28.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.15], t(320) = 0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.29], t(320) = -1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-1.80, -2.81e-03], t(320) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.49, -7.67e-04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.06 (95% CI [9.36, 10.75], t(320) = 28.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.23, 0.73], t(320) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.22], t(320) = -1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.35, 0.55], t(320) = -0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.49 (95% CI [7.80, 9.19], t(320) = 23.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.23], t(320) = 0.51, p = 0.613; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.35], t(320) = -0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.28], t(320) = -1.40, p = 0.163; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.75 (95% CI [26.80, 30.71], t(320) = 28.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-2.59, 2.93], t(320) = 0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.56], t(320) = -1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-4.32, 0.47], t(320) = -1.57, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,039.951

1,051.312

-516.976

1,033.951

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,042.354

1,065.075

-515.177

1,030.354

3.597

3

0.308

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,575.416

1,586.776

-784.708

1,569.416

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,577.262

1,599.983

-782.631

1,565.262

4.154

3

0.245

ras_confidence

null

3

1,971.368

1,982.729

-982.684

1,965.368

ras_confidence

random

6

1,958.955

1,981.677

-973.478

1,946.955

18.412

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,348.282

1,359.643

-671.141

1,342.282

ras_willingness

random

6

1,348.514

1,371.236

-668.257

1,336.514

5.767

3

0.123

ras_goal

null

3

1,641.757

1,653.117

-817.878

1,635.757

ras_goal

random

6

1,636.837

1,659.558

-812.418

1,624.837

10.920

3

0.012

ras_reliance

null

3

1,560.143

1,571.504

-777.071

1,554.143

ras_reliance

random

6

1,554.252

1,576.973

-771.126

1,542.252

11.891

3

0.008

ras_domination

null

3

1,466.246

1,477.606

-730.123

1,460.246

ras_domination

random

6

1,458.916

1,481.638

-723.458

1,446.916

13.329

3

0.004

symptom

null

3

2,275.813

2,287.174

-1,134.906

2,269.813

symptom

random

6

2,267.900

2,290.622

-1,127.950

2,255.900

13.913

3

0.003

slof_work

null

3

1,856.929

1,868.289

-925.464

1,850.929

slof_work

random

6

1,861.412

1,884.134

-924.706

1,849.412

1.516

3

0.679

slof_relationship

null

3

1,992.254

2,003.614

-993.127

1,986.254

slof_relationship

random

6

1,994.636

2,017.357

-991.318

1,982.636

3.618

3

0.306

satisfaction

null

3

2,123.429

2,134.790

-1,058.715

2,117.429

satisfaction

random

6

2,117.867

2,140.588

-1,052.933

2,105.867

11.562

3

0.009

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,688.882

1,700.243

-841.441

1,682.882

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,690.661

1,713.382

-839.330

1,678.661

4.222

3

0.238

mhc_social

null

3

2,012.510

2,023.871

-1,003.255

2,006.510

mhc_social

random

6

2,013.088

2,035.810

-1,000.544

2,001.088

5.422

3

0.143

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,096.078

2,107.439

-1,045.039

2,090.078

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,096.615

2,119.337

-1,042.308

2,084.615

5.463

3

0.141

resilisnce

null

3

1,858.921

1,870.281

-926.460

1,852.921

resilisnce

random

6

1,846.336

1,869.057

-917.168

1,834.336

18.585

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,546.566

1,557.927

-770.283

1,540.566

social_provision

random

6

1,545.093

1,567.815

-766.547

1,533.093

7.473

3

0.058

els_value_living

null

3

1,613.574

1,624.934

-803.787

1,607.574

els_value_living

random

6

1,612.022

1,634.743

-800.011

1,600.022

7.552

3

0.056

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,619.435

1,630.796

-806.718

1,613.435

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,616.296

1,639.017

-802.148

1,604.296

9.139

3

0.027

els

null

3

2,003.998

2,015.358

-998.999

1,997.998

els

random

6

1,999.699

2,022.420

-993.849

1,987.699

10.299

3

0.016

social_connect

null

3

2,293.079

2,304.440

-1,143.540

2,287.079

social_connect

random

6

2,281.834

2,304.556

-1,134.917

2,269.834

17.245

3

0.001

shs_agency

null

3

1,881.871

1,893.232

-937.935

1,875.871

shs_agency

random

6

1,877.349

1,900.070

-932.674

1,865.349

10.522

3

0.015

shs_pathway

null

3

1,769.176

1,780.537

-881.588

1,763.176

shs_pathway

random

6

1,764.500

1,787.221

-876.250

1,752.500

10.676

3

0.014

shs

null

3

2,245.821

2,257.182

-1,119.910

2,239.821

shs

random

6

2,239.943

2,262.665

-1,113.972

2,227.943

11.878

3

0.008

esteem

null

3

1,187.202

1,198.563

-590.601

1,181.202

esteem

random

6

1,193.019

1,215.741

-590.510

1,181.019

0.183

3

0.980

mlq_search

null

3

1,698.128

1,709.489

-846.064

1,692.128

mlq_search

random

6

1,699.761

1,722.482

-843.880

1,687.761

4.367

3

0.224

mlq_presence

null

3

1,816.163

1,827.524

-905.082

1,810.163

mlq_presence

random

6

1,815.891

1,838.612

-901.946

1,803.891

6.272

3

0.099

mlq

null

3

2,144.869

2,156.229

-1,069.434

2,138.869

mlq

random

6

2,145.248

2,167.969

-1,066.624

2,133.248

5.621

3

0.132

empower

null

3

1,830.929

1,842.289

-912.464

1,824.929

empower

random

6

1,828.517

1,851.238

-908.258

1,816.517

8.412

3

0.038

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,503.694

1,515.054

-748.847

1,497.694

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,499.782

1,522.504

-743.891

1,487.782

9.911

3

0.019

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,626.490

1,637.851

-810.245

1,620.490

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,624.865

1,647.587

-806.433

1,612.865

7.625

3

0.054

sss_affective

null

3

1,683.849

1,695.209

-838.924

1,677.849

sss_affective

random

6

1,675.997

1,698.719

-831.999

1,663.997

13.851

3

0.003

sss_behavior

null

3

1,691.578

1,702.939

-842.789

1,685.578

sss_behavior

random

6

1,690.025

1,712.747

-839.013

1,678.025

7.553

3

0.056

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,698.265

1,709.625

-846.132

1,692.265

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,695.781

1,718.503

-841.891

1,683.781

8.483

3

0.037

sss

null

3

2,346.864

2,358.225

-1,170.432

2,340.864

sss

random

6

2,340.432

2,363.153

-1,164.216

2,328.432

12.433

3

0.006

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

106

3.13 ± 1.22

108

3.13 ± 1.22

0.997

0.001

recovery_stage_a

2nd

61

3.21 ± 1.18

-0.083

51

3.44 ± 1.17

-0.327

0.306

-0.243

recovery_stage_b

1st

106

18.05 ± 2.92

108

17.79 ± 2.93

0.521

0.142

recovery_stage_b

2nd

61

17.77 ± 2.68

0.152

51

18.41 ± 2.62

-0.345

0.202

-0.354

ras_confidence

1st

106

29.57 ± 5.49

108

29.95 ± 5.51

0.606

-0.135

ras_confidence

2nd

61

30.13 ± 4.84

-0.196

51

32.20 ± 4.68

-0.779

0.023

-0.718

ras_willingness

1st

106

11.67 ± 2.08

108

11.63 ± 2.09

0.879

0.035

ras_willingness

2nd

61

11.69 ± 1.89

-0.015

51

12.18 ± 1.84

-0.447

0.166

-0.397

ras_goal

1st

106

17.19 ± 3.29

108

17.52 ± 3.30

0.462

-0.181

ras_goal

2nd

61

17.36 ± 2.94

-0.092

51

18.58 ± 2.86

-0.576

0.027

-0.664

ras_reliance

1st

106

13.03 ± 2.92

108

13.34 ± 2.93

0.431

-0.199

ras_reliance

2nd

61

13.39 ± 2.60

-0.230

51

14.25 ± 2.51

-0.574

0.077

-0.542

ras_domination

1st

106

10.01 ± 2.40

108

9.60 ± 2.41

0.211

0.265

ras_domination

2nd

61

9.93 ± 2.23

0.054

51

10.67 ± 2.19

-0.687

0.077

-0.477

symptom

1st

106

30.28 ± 9.24

108

30.18 ± 9.28

0.936

0.025

symptom

2nd

61

29.07 ± 7.89

0.293

51

27.45 ± 7.54

0.660

0.269

0.391

slof_work

1st

106

22.30 ± 4.72

108

22.09 ± 4.74

0.739

0.087

slof_work

2nd

61

22.38 ± 4.17

-0.031

51

22.66 ± 4.03

-0.229

0.722

-0.112

slof_relationship

1st

106

24.64 ± 5.76

108

25.68 ± 5.78

0.190

-0.336

slof_relationship

2nd

61

24.57 ± 5.11

0.022

51

26.27 ± 4.94

-0.192

0.075

-0.550

satisfaction

1st

106

19.54 ± 7.05

108

20.89 ± 7.08

0.164

-0.373

satisfaction

2nd

61

20.38 ± 6.19

-0.233

51

22.73 ± 5.97

-0.509

0.042

-0.649

mhc_emotional

1st

106

10.61 ± 3.76

108

10.83 ± 3.78

0.675

-0.123

mhc_emotional

2nd

61

10.96 ± 3.24

-0.199

51

11.39 ± 3.11

-0.315

0.484

-0.239

mhc_social

1st

106

14.97 ± 5.96

108

15.44 ± 5.98

0.563

-0.151

mhc_social

2nd

61

15.75 ± 5.26

-0.249

51

16.49 ± 5.08

-0.334

0.451

-0.236

mhc_psychological

1st

106

21.55 ± 6.89

108

22.04 ± 6.92

0.603

-0.144

mhc_psychological

2nd

61

22.51 ± 6.01

-0.281

51

23.11 ± 5.78

-0.314

0.588

-0.177

resilisnce

1st

106

16.01 ± 4.49

108

17.06 ± 4.50

0.088

-0.405

resilisnce

2nd

61

16.66 ± 4.05

-0.251

51

18.77 ± 3.94

-0.655

0.006

-0.809

social_provision

1st

106

13.20 ± 2.86

108

13.94 ± 2.87

0.060

-0.462

social_provision

2nd

61

13.01 ± 2.56

0.120

51

14.29 ± 2.48

-0.221

0.008

-0.804

els_value_living

1st

106

16.80 ± 3.15

108

17.14 ± 3.16

0.439

-0.187

els_value_living

2nd

61

17.01 ± 2.83

-0.115

51

17.95 ± 2.75

-0.454

0.076

-0.525

els_life_fulfill

1st

106

12.37 ± 3.25

108

13.04 ± 3.26

0.135

-0.394

els_life_fulfill

2nd

61

12.59 ± 2.86

-0.134

51

13.77 ± 2.77

-0.435

0.028

-0.696

els

1st

106

29.17 ± 5.90

108

30.17 ± 5.92

0.215

-0.335

els

2nd

61

29.63 ± 5.17

-0.154

51

31.69 ± 4.98

-0.506

0.033

-0.687

social_connect

1st

106

26.92 ± 9.19

108

26.23 ± 9.23

0.588

0.152

social_connect

2nd

61

27.25 ± 7.99

-0.074

51

22.80 ± 7.68

0.762

0.003

0.989

shs_agency

1st

106

13.74 ± 4.98

108

14.88 ± 5.00

0.095

-0.480

shs_agency

2nd

61

14.28 ± 4.31

-0.227

51

15.94 ± 4.13

-0.447

0.038

-0.700

shs_pathway

1st

106

15.42 ± 4.07

108

16.35 ± 4.08

0.094

-0.438

shs_pathway

2nd

61

16.00 ± 3.59

-0.274

51

17.26 ± 3.47

-0.422

0.062

-0.586

shs

1st

106

29.15 ± 8.64

108

31.23 ± 8.68

0.080

-0.496

shs

2nd

61

30.27 ± 7.50

-0.267

51

33.19 ± 7.20

-0.466

0.037

-0.695

esteem

1st

106

12.65 ± 1.54

108

12.72 ± 1.54

0.746

-0.058

esteem

2nd

61

12.63 ± 1.49

0.014

51

12.74 ± 1.47

-0.014

0.719

-0.085

mlq_search

1st

106

14.42 ± 3.47

108

15.13 ± 3.48

0.137

-0.312

mlq_search

2nd

61

15.12 ± 3.23

-0.305

51

15.15 ± 3.17

-0.007

0.956

-0.015

mlq_presence

1st

106

13.25 ± 4.24

108

13.55 ± 4.26

0.599

-0.120

mlq_presence

2nd

61

14.02 ± 3.86

-0.305

51

14.38 ± 3.77

-0.326

0.621

-0.141

mlq

1st

106

27.67 ± 6.95

108

28.69 ± 6.97

0.287

-0.233

mlq

2nd

61

29.14 ± 6.39

-0.337

51

29.55 ± 6.26

-0.197

0.734

-0.093

empower

1st

106

18.89 ± 4.45

108

19.56 ± 4.47

0.272

-0.279

empower

2nd

61

19.88 ± 3.96

-0.411

51

20.24 ± 3.83

-0.282

0.626

-0.149

ismi_resistance

1st

106

14.34 ± 2.55

108

14.36 ± 2.55

0.948

-0.013

ismi_resistance

2nd

61

14.67 ± 2.37

-0.199

51

15.27 ± 2.33

-0.540

0.180

-0.355

ismi_discrimation

1st

106

11.84 ± 3.08

108

11.58 ± 3.09

0.545

0.124

ismi_discrimation

2nd

61

11.38 ± 2.88

0.225

51

10.71 ± 2.83

0.422

0.222

0.321

sss_affective

1st

106

10.21 ± 3.64

108

10.38 ± 3.66

0.736

-0.096

sss_affective

2nd

61

9.89 ± 3.16

0.181

51

9.15 ± 3.03

0.694

0.212

0.417

sss_behavior

1st

106

10.06 ± 3.66

108

9.81 ± 3.68

0.619

0.134

sss_behavior

2nd

61

9.63 ± 3.21

0.230

51

8.98 ± 3.10

0.444

0.278

0.348

sss_cognitive

1st

106

8.49 ± 3.65

108

8.74 ± 3.67

0.614

-0.130

sss_cognitive

2nd

61

8.17 ± 3.23

0.164

51

7.72 ± 3.12

0.526

0.456

0.231

sss

1st

106

28.75 ± 10.29

108

28.92 ± 10.33

0.905

-0.036

sss

2nd

61

27.70 ± 8.81

0.226

51

25.94 ± 8.43

0.638

0.283

0.376

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(289.37) = -0.00, p = 0.997, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.33)

2st

t(319.68) = 1.02, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.67)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(260.45) = -0.64, p = 0.521, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.53)

2st

t(321.79) = 1.28, p = 0.202, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.63)

ras_confidence

1st

t(245.12) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.87)

2st

t(320.53) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.84)

ras_willingness

1st

t(255.86) = -0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.60 to 0.52)

2st

t(322.00) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.18)

ras_goal

1st

t(250.39) = 0.74, p = 0.462, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.22)

2st

t(321.74) = 2.22, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.14 to 2.30)

ras_reliance

1st

t(247.97) = 0.79, p = 0.431, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.10)

2st

t(321.33) = 1.78, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.81)

ras_domination

1st

t(265.66) = -1.25, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.24)

2st

t(321.34) = 1.77, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.57)

symptom

1st

t(235.20) = -0.08, p = 0.936, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.60 to 2.39)

2st

t(313.04) = -1.11, p = 0.269, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-4.50 to 1.26)

slof_work

1st

t(245.36) = -0.33, p = 0.739, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.06)

2st

t(320.61) = 0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.25 to 1.80)

slof_relationship

1st

t(246.91) = 1.31, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.59)

2st

t(321.08) = 1.78, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.17 to 3.57)

satisfaction

1st

t(243.56) = 1.40, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.25)

2st

t(319.90) = 2.04, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.08 to 4.61)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(237.70) = 0.42, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.23)

2st

t(315.85) = 0.70, p = 0.484, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.60)

mhc_social

1st

t(245.41) = 0.58, p = 0.563, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.13 to 2.08)

2st

t(320.63) = 0.75, p = 0.451, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.19 to 2.67)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(241.16) = 0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.35)

2st

t(318.60) = 0.54, p = 0.588, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.59 to 2.80)

resilisnce

1st

t(253.69) = 1.71, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.26)

2st

t(321.98) = 2.78, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.62 to 3.60)

social_provision

1st

t(250.40) = 1.89, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.51)

2st

t(321.74) = 2.69, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (0.34 to 2.22)

els_value_living

1st

t(251.77) = 0.77, p = 0.439, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.18)

2st

t(321.87) = 1.78, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.98)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(244.71) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.21 to 1.55)

2st

t(320.38) = 2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.23)

els

1st

t(242.87) = 1.24, p = 0.215, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.59)

2st

t(319.57) = 2.14, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.17 to 3.95)

social_connect

1st

t(240.34) = -0.54, p = 0.588, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.16 to 1.80)

2st

t(318.05) = -3.00, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.99, 95% CI (-7.37 to -1.53)

shs_agency

1st

t(238.90) = 1.68, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.20 to 2.49)

2st

t(316.94) = 2.09, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.09 to 3.24)

shs_pathway

1st

t(245.44) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.16 to 2.04)

2st

t(320.64) = 1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.57)

shs

1st

t(239.83) = 1.76, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.25 to 4.41)

2st

t(317.68) = 2.09, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.17 to 5.65)

esteem

1st

t(289.46) = 0.32, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.48)

2st

t(319.67) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.65)

mlq_search

1st

t(266.68) = 1.49, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.65)

2st

t(321.24) = 0.06, p = 0.956, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.23)

mlq_presence

1st

t(257.23) = 0.53, p = 0.599, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.45)

2st

t(321.96) = 0.50, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.78)

mlq

1st

t(261.84) = 1.07, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.89)

2st

t(321.69) = 0.34, p = 0.734, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.77)

empower

1st

t(247.62) = 1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.87)

2st

t(321.26) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.81)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(268.29) = 0.07, p = 0.948, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.66 to 0.71)

2st

t(321.08) = 1.34, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.48)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(269.77) = -0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.57)

2st

t(320.94) = -1.22, p = 0.222, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.40)

sss_affective

1st

t(239.50) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.15)

2st

t(317.43) = -1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.42)

sss_behavior

1st

t(243.02) = -0.50, p = 0.619, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.74)

2st

t(319.64) = -1.09, p = 0.278, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.83 to 0.53)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(246.17) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 1.24)

2st

t(320.87) = -0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.63 to 0.74)

sss

1st

t(235.89) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.61 to 2.95)

2st

t(313.90) = -1.07, p = 0.283, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-4.97 to 1.46)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(158.13) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.64)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(138.61) = 1.83, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.30)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(129.60) = 4.08, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (1.15 to 3.33)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(135.84) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(132.63) = 3.03, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.37 to 1.75)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(131.23) = 3.01, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.51)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(141.83) = 3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.49 to 1.65)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(124.03) = -3.42, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.31 to -1.15)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(129.74) = 1.20, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.51)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(130.62) = 1.00, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.76)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(128.71) = 2.66, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.47 to 3.21)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(125.42) = 1.64, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.23)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(129.76) = 1.75, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.23)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(127.35) = 1.64, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.37)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(134.56) = 3.46, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.73 to 2.68)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(132.63) = 1.16, p = 0.494, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.95)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(133.43) = 2.39, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.14 to 1.48)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(129.36) = 2.27, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.38)

els

1st vs 2st

t(128.32) = 2.64, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.65)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(126.90) = -3.97, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-5.14 to -1.72)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(126.09) = 2.32, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.97)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(129.78) = 2.21, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.71)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(126.61) = 2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.36 to 3.55)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(158.20) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.44)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(142.47) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.82 to 0.86)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(136.67) = 1.72, p = 0.174, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.78)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(139.46) = 1.05, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.48)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(131.03) = 1.48, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.59)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(143.49) = 2.89, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.53)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(144.44) = -2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.63 to -0.11)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(126.43) = -3.61, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-1.89 to -0.55)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(128.40) = -2.32, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.54 to -0.12)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(130.20) = -2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.29)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(124.42) = -3.31, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-4.76 to -1.20)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(147.73) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.39)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(132.81) = -0.87, p = 0.770, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.35)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(125.80) = 1.12, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.57)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(130.67) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.44)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(128.17) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.81)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(127.08) = 1.31, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.92)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(135.29) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.45)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(121.43) = -1.65, p = 0.202, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.67 to 0.24)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(125.91) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.94)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(126.60) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.01)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(125.11) = 1.32, p = 0.378, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.10)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(122.52) = 1.12, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.97)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(125.93) = 1.42, p = 0.318, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.87)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(124.04) = 1.59, p = 0.228, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.15)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(129.67) = 1.44, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.55)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(128.17) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.36)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(128.80) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.83)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(125.62) = 0.76, p = 0.899, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.82)

els

1st vs 2st

t(124.80) = 0.87, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.51)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(123.68) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.91)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(123.05) = 1.28, p = 0.405, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.37)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(125.94) = 1.56, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.33)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(123.46) = 1.51, p = 0.265, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.59)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(147.78) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.38)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(135.79) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.47)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(131.31) = 1.75, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(133.47) = 1.94, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.03 to 2.97)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(126.92) = 2.34, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.83)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(136.57) = 1.15, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.91)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(137.30) = -1.30, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.24)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(123.31) = -1.03, p = 0.614, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.30)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(124.87) = -1.30, p = 0.390, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.22)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(126.27) = -0.93, p = 0.706, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.36)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(121.73) = -1.28, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.58)

Plot

Clinical significance